In 2018 I began reading the modern "Race Scholarship": Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory”, etc.

What I found was appalling. Quack scholarship: Circular reasoning, logical fallacies & ideological bullying. No methodology. No science. Assertions without evidence.
A simple example: Dr. Kendi's use of the single-cause fallacy. A basic logical fallacy taught in Freshman Logic 1010. In fact, he uses it throught his "scholarship".

It's central to his thesis:
“To be antiracist is to view the inequities between all racialized ethnic groups as a problem of policy.” [p18]

“A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.” [p64]
There's a reason the scholar doesn't debate or discuss his ideas in public. There's a reason he doesn't answer difficult questions about his scholarship.

His scholarship is gibberish.
And that's kind of sad. Perhaps tragic. Racism has caused massacres & wars & genocides. It's a subject that deserves real scholars & real scholarship.

It's receiving quack scholarship from intolerant quack-scholar ideologues.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Woke Temple

The Woke Temple Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @WokeTemple

Jan 22
In 2018 I began reading the modern "Race Scholarship": Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory”, etc. What I found was appalling. Circular reasoning, logical fallacies & ideological bullying. No methodology. No science. No data. Just assertions—all without evidence……… Image
And that frustrated me. After all, racism has been responsible for massacres & wars & genocides. Doesn’t it deserve serious scholarship?

And so, in my free time, I started doing memes to try to explain this bankrupt ideology.

An example…………
The scholar Ibram X. Kendi gives readers what’s called a “false choice”, a basic logical fallacy taught in freshman Logic 101. Thing X must fall into category A or Category B. There is no other option.

Why? Because the scholar said so. He doesn’t back it up with any reasoning.
Read 19 tweets
Jan 21
After posting a DiAngleo/White-Fragility meme, I often read comments from people espousing “The DiAngelo Projection Theory”. I’ve never liked this as it requires mind-reading of a person’s true motives.

But gosh, one can entertain the idea. 🤔 Image
The DiAngelo Projection Theory agrees with the teachings in her book, which states that we are ALL racist & have racist thoughts, conscious or unconscious.

That’s a reasonable & defendable position. We all have stereotypes, biases & prejudices, both conscious and unconscious.
So then it’s a matter of degree. And that’s where the hardcore projection theory (again, it’s a theory) kicks in. DiAngelo takes the (rather large) step further and says we all have “antiBlackness”, that antiBlackness is “foundational to our identities”, that whites dream of . .
Read 17 tweets
Jan 21
I am a bundle of prejudices: height, weight, accent, looks, race, ethnicity, eye color, clothing, university alma mater, etc, etc. Conscious & unconscious.

I try to be aware of these prejudices & not let them affect my actions.

This scholar claims they ALWAYS affect . . . Image
. . . my actions. Always.

She doesn’t give evidence for this claim. She just make that claim.

Which might seem like an odd thing to do for a scholar: assert without evidence.

But that’s what Race Scholars & CRT scholars do. Assert without evidence. . . .
Read the "scholarship" & found out for yourself. It is, by and large, quackery. Unscientific. Filled with logical fallacies, circular reasoning, correlation/causation errors & ideological bullying. No methodology. No science. Just assertions without evidence. . . .
Read 4 tweets
Jan 20
🗣️ The scholar asserts.

🤔 Evidence for the scholar's assertion? A few cherry-picked anecdotes, mostly from 100 years ago.

😮 Are 100-year-old, cherry-picked anecdotes sufficient data to extrapolate to an entire population today? The scholar says so.
This is the degree of "scholarship" in much contemporary "Race Scholship". Assert something about people today. Then look for anecdotes from 100 years to to support this assertion. No data. No statistics. No analysis. Just broad, sweeping assertions.
In 2018 I began reading the modern "Race Scholarship": Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory”, etc.

What I found was appalling. Quack scholarship: Circular reasoning, logical fallacies & ideological bullying. No methodology. No science. Assertions without evidence.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 20
In 2018 I began reading the modern "Race Scholarship": Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory”, etc.

What I found was appalling. Quack scholarship: Circular reasoning, logical fallacies & ideological bullying. No methodology. No science. Assertions without evidence.
This was one of the manipulations. Your opinion was valid or invalid—based on your race. And then your opinion was valid or invalid based on the race of the person you agreed with—unless they had the "wrong" opinion. In which case their race came into play—but in a different way.
Like a lot of their ideas, then originated from a kernel of truth. Even a noble truth: listen to people outside your in-group as they have experiences you don’t.

Fair enough.
Read 19 tweets
Jan 19
In 2018, I began reading the "Race Scholarship": Kendi, DiAngelo, Delgado’s “Critical Race Theory”, etc.

What I found was appalling "scholarship": Circular reasoing, logical fallacies & ideologocial bullying. No methodology or science. Simply assertions, all without evidence.
The basic framework for a paper is thus:

1. Read the ideology. Believe the core tents of the ideology.
2. Observe something.
3. Search for evidence that fits the ideology.
4. The end.

That's pretty much the "scholarship" of these papers.
But don't take my word for it. Read some of this "scholarship" yourself. I'll post some links below. Print out one of these scholarly, peer-reviewed papers yourself and read during your lunch break. It's probably a good, 45-minute read. Would enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(